AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
NONE for respondent No. 2. It is stated served.
THIS revision is filed by the original complainant seeking revision of the order dated 14.10.2003 passed by Mumbai Suburban District Forum, whereby it has proceeded to dismiss the complaint of the complainant for default. It is noticed from the order that the complainant remained absent as many as on 7 occasions and, therefore, District Forum was justified in proceeding ex parte as it has done.
Across, we are told that the pleadings in the matter herein were completed by the parties.
THEREFORE, submission is made across on behalf of the applicant/complainant that in such position the District Forum should have considered the material on record and proceeded to dismiss the consumer dispute on merits, which has not been done and which is a mandatory obligation under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We see a point as advanced in the terms as aforesaid. Again we notice that the complainant is trying to reap advantage of the law, but that will not exonerate the conduct of being not diligent in prosecution of the complaint herein.
THAT being so, we are also saddling the complainant with payment of cost to respondent No. 3 who had appeared before the District Forum at the relevant time. We are allowing the revision and setting aside the order dated 14.10.2003 passed by Mumbai Suburban District Forum and restoring the application and directing the District Forum to proceed to dispose of the same on merits in accordance with the provisions of the Law and the Rules. Hence the following order : ORDER 1. Revision is allowed and order dated 14.10.2003 passed by Mumbai, Suburban District Forum is set aside and Complaint No. 1074 of 1999 is restored to its file. 2. District Forum shall proceed to dispose of the complaint on merits in accordance with the provisions of the Law and the Rules and on providing opportunities to the parties. 3. By consent we fix 10.8.2002 as a date for appearance of the parties before the District Forum on which date parties shall appear before the District Forum without fail and it is made clear and distinctly understood that no further notices for appearance will be required to be sent to the District Forum. 4. Applicant''s Advocate shall furnish copies of this order to Mumbai Suburban District Forum, as also to respondent No. 2 who are not present before us. 5. Applicant/complainant shall pay cost to respondent No. 3 quantified at Rs. 1,000/- to be paid as condition precedent within 2 weeks from today.
Revision allowed.